Part of
Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 81106
References
Askedal, J.O
(1984) Grammatikalisierung und Auxiliarisierung im sogenannten ‚bekommen/kriegen/erhalten-Passiv‘ des Deutschen. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik, 22, 5–47.Google Scholar
(2005) Grammatikalisierung und Persistenz im deutschen Rezipienten-Passiv mit bekommen/kriegen/erhalten . In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 211–228). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bader, M
(2012) The German bekommen passive: A case study on frequency and grammaticality. Linguistische Berichte, 231, 249–298.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J
Barðdal, J., & Chelliah, S
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2009) Context and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph, & R.J. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Languages 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Cacoullos, R.T
(2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 university of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Symposium on Formulaic Language (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S
(2012) Cognitive explanations, distributional evidence, and diachrony. In N. Gisborne, & W. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics. Special issue of Studies in Language, 36(3), 645–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 151–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H
(2012) The course of actualization. Language, 88, 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G
(1997) Grammatikalisierung: Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over - case studies and theoretical implications. [[URL]]
(2008) The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven, S. Skopeteas, Y.-M. Shin, Y. Nishina, & J. Helmbrecht (Eds.), Studies on grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E
(2010) Evidentiality in German. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Paradigmatic integration: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M
(2008) Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), 47–79.
Goldberg, A
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A., & Campbell, L
(1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M
(2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In G. Trousdale, & Th. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 458–477). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization - A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E.C
(2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A.L. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T
(2004) Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leirbukt, O
(1997) Untersuchungen zu bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, D
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14, 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rostila, J
(2004) Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In F. Karlsson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian conference of linguistics. [URL].
Smirnova, E
(2006) Die Entwicklung der Konstruktion würde + Infinitiv im Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stathi, K
(2010) Is German gehören an auxiliary? The grammaticalization of the construction gehören + participle II. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 323–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A
(1977) Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 141–177). Austin, Texas: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Richard, B.D
(2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
(2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G
(2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. Konig (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 51–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Theory and data in diachronic construction grammar: The case of the what with construction. In N. Gisborne, & W. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics. Special issue of Studies in Language, 36(3), 576–602.Google Scholar
Wegener, H
(1985) ‘Er bekommt widersprochen‘: Argumente für die Existenz eines Dativpassivs im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, 96, 127–139.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 23 other publications

BYBEE, JOAN
2023. What Is Usage‐Based Linguistics?. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics,  pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Flach, Susanne
2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren & Andrea Nini
2020. Individuality in syntactic variation: An investigation of the seventeenth-century gerund alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2  pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren & Peter Petré
2022. On the probability and direction of morphosyntactic lifespan change. Language Variation and Change 34:1  pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal
2023. From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar. Studies in Language 47:4  pp. 743 ff. DOI logo
Prévost, Sophie
2021. Évolution de la position du sujet en français : une approche constructionnelle. Langue française N° 209:1  pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Rosemeyer, Malte & Mar Garachana
2019. De la consecución a la contraexpectación: la construccionalización delograr/conseguir+ infinitivo. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 12:2  pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Stefan
2023. Construct types in language change. Journal of Historical Linguistics DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena
2015. When secondary grammaticalization starts: a look from the constructional perspective. Language Sciences 47  pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020. Introduction. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena & Vanessa Stöber
2022. Verbo-Nominal Constructions withkommen‘come’ in German. Constructions and Frames 14:1  pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2023. The semiotics of motion encoding in Early English: a cognitive semiotic analysis of phrasal verbs in Old and Middle English. Semiotica 2023:251  pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
White, Nathan M.
2022. Grammaticalization and phonological reidentification in White Hmong. Studies in Language 46:1  pp. 258 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva & Marianne Hundt
Zhan, Fangqiong
2020. The development of the Chinese expressive zhenshide: A diachronic constructional approach. Lingua 248  pp. 102981 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong
2022. A constructional account of the development of the Chinese stance discourse markerběnlái. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 23:2  pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Haihua Pan
2023. The development of the Chinese VdeO cleft construction. Studies in Language 47:2  pp. 318 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2015. The constructionalization of the Chinese cleft construction. Studies in Language 39:2  pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2019. The development of the Chinese copulashìconstruction. Functions of Language 26:2  pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 february 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.